The party of hawks turns dovish on Syria

Ever since Dwight Eisenhower was in the Oval Office, the Republican Party has been known for its internationalist approach to foreign affairs. After Democrats became disillusioned and dovish following the quagmire in Vietnam, Ronald Reagan helped solidify the GOP reputation as strong on national defense.

Republicans haven’t always been on board with an interventionist approach abroad — many GOP members of Congress opposed Bill Clinton’s intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo during the 1990s — but that was a rare exception.

Text Size

-

+

reset

The role reversal applies to some Democrats, too. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, representing the anti-war hotbed of San Francisco, was one of the most outspoken critics of the Iraq invasion a decade ago. Now she’s in the uncomfortable position of trying to spare Obama the embarrassment of seeing her caucus snub him on the Syria vote.

Sen Barbara Boxer, another California Democrat and hero of the anti-war left during Iraq, is similarly singing a different tune now.

During the Iraq debate, Boxer said: “I cannot vote for a blank check for unilateral action … in this case, when the presidentStill, the we-must-strike message from Boxer isn’t exactly what her constituents are used to. is proposing to go it alone, I think we have the right on behalf of the people we represent to have the questions answered.”

Boxer now rejects comparing Iraq to Syria, stressing that it would be a much narrower mission.

“The failure to act, I think, gives license to the Syrian president to use these weapons again,” the senator said recently. “And it sends a terrible signal to other brutal regimes like North Korea.”

But the turnabout among Republicans is more extensive and striking. Their opposition is in no small part a reflection of exhaustion of combat in a battle-ravaged Arab world. While hawkish figures like Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina are still influential, isolationist-minded libertarianism, a peripheral strain of the GOP, has taken on new prominence symbolized by the rise of Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.

The GOP’s mood, say some Republicans, has changed since Sept. 11, 2001.

“Obviously, in 2002 we were fresh on the heels of 9/11, and as time goes on, a sense of danger fades somewhat, because our military and intelligence has done such a good job,” Texas GOP Rep. Mac Thornberry, who holds seats on the Armed Services and Intelligence committees, said in an interview.

“There is a somewhat different culture” now, added Thornberry, who supported the Iraq War resolution and who’s leaning toward opposing a strike.

But politics is also unquestionably at play. The GOP’s resistance has to do not just with the proposed mission but who’s leading the charge. Having Obama making the case instead of Bush, makes a difference.

In 2002, South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson took to the House floor to call for wiping out Hussein, “a bloodthirsty dictator who has access to chemical, nuclear and biological weapons.”

Now, Wilson has little interest in taking on Assad. During Kerry’s appearance at a House Foreign Relations Committee hearing last week, Wilson — who infamously yelled “You lie” at Obama during an address to a joint session of Congress — accused the administration of pushing for military action to cover up for the Benghazi, Internal Revenue Service and National Security Agency controversies that have plagued the White House.

For Republicans like Arkansas Sen. John Boozman, though, not wanting to go into Syria simply has to do with not repeating past mistakes.

“The thing we should have learned with Libya and Iraq and Afghanistan is it’s easy to get into these things and it’s tough to get out,” Boozman, who voted for the Oct. 2002 Iraq War resolution, said at Southern Arkansas University Tuesday, according to the Magnolia Reporter. “I don’t know that there really is a good path.”

CORRECTION: The original version of this story misstated the number of currently-serving congressional Republicans who voted on the 2002 Iraq war resolution. It also misstated the number of Republicans who supported the resolution.